St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-12-28

sale having expired and no apparently
valid redemption having been made. A
complaint does not show case for an
injunction to prevent cloud upon the
title if it appears only by Inference and
not by averment that acts are threat
ened or contemplated -whiehtwill impose
cloud. Order reversed.
DICKINSON, j.
Mitchell. j., dissents from the forego-
ing decision in the following language:
am unable to concur in the doctrine
that an action TO remove clond from
title will not lie merely because the in
strument constituting the alleged cloud
is void for the defects annearing on its
face. ! AIN aware that il Is supported
by long line of venerable authorities
which this court has followed in several
eases. The old reason assigned for the
rule, as that if the defects appear on the
face of the instrument. no reason existed
for equitable interference, because it
could not be said that any cloud what
ever is cast upon the title. Whatever
technical reason for sucha rule might
have existed when law and equity juris-.
diction were separate, no reason now
exists for its continuance.
John A. Score, appellant. VS.. William
Amos, respondent.
Syllabus a general denial of a
complaint alleging that defendant hired
plaintiff and agreed to pay him, defend
ant may prove that he as agent for an
other made the contract of hiring
alleged, and disclosed his principal to
the plaintiff. Evidence held sufficient
to sustain finding. Order affirmed:
GILFILLAN, G. j.
State of Minnesota ex rel. ID. J. Hen
messy, relatOr, VS.. Municipal Court OF
st. Paul, respondent.
SyllabuS-Under q criminal statute
relating to buildings which are unsafe
80 as to endanger life" complaint in
a criminal proceeding, alleging build
ing to be dangerous. having been here
tofOre damaged by fire." Is insufficient.
Neither is such complaint sufficient
under a statute relating to buildings
which are specially dangerous in case
of fire." Judgment reversed.
DICKINSON, j.
Terrence Connolly. as administrator,
etc, appellant, VS.. the Minneapolis
Eastern Railway company, respond
ent.
S, llabus-A railroad company is not
responsible to its section men or track
men for the negligence of the engineer
or brakemen of train, they being fell
low servants. \ complaint charging the
company only with negligence in the
movement of particular train, with
out warning, does not involve as a cause
of action the neglect of the company to
establish general regulations for the
conduct of its servants in such cases.
New trial refused. DICKINSON, j.
State of Minnesota eX rel. Samuel B.
Stanchfeld, appellant, VS.. Philip
Dressed, as county auditor, etc, re-
SpOndent.
Syllabus-The proceeding under sec
14S, chapter II, General Statutes 1878,
aided by chapter 10, laws 1881, upon
the application of a holder of tax sale
certificate TO have the amount paid by
him for the certificate and subsequent
taxes refunded out of the county treas
ury is not judicial in its nature. and the
duties thereby imposed may be per-
formed by other than judicial officers.
After the time to redeem from tax
judgment sale has expired, the former
owner cannot be heard to question the
regularity of the proceedings under sec
ton 14S to refund upon an application
made on the ground that the tax Judg-
ment and sale were void for want of ju
risdiction in the court nor to object to
proceeding to enforce the taxes if they
were properly levied. for. if the sale was
void the taxes were not satisfied by 1t;
if it was valid the former owner has
ceased to have any interest in the land.
Ord er affirmed GIEFiLLAN, 4. j.
-.-
Nicollet National Bank of Minneapolis,
respondent, VS.. City Bank, appellant.
SyllabHs-The legislature having bor-
rOWed from another state and adopted
into our law statute which had been
iudically construed in such state pre-
sumption arises. of greater or less force
according to the circumstances, that the
leg iSlature intended to adopt the statute
with that settled construction. The act
of 1881 prohibiting banks, organized
under the laws of this state, from max
ing loans or discounts on the security of
the shares of its capital stock is effectual
to prevent bank from having lien Oh
the shares of stakeholder for debt
thus created subsequent to that enact
ment, although a bylaw adopted prior
to that statute had provided for such
lien. Although the shares of such stock
were made transferable only on the
books of the bank, al assignment of the
same, without such transfer will invest
the assignee with an equitable title,
which will be prOte cted as against all
parties not showing superior right.
Such an assignment by the stockholders
for the purpose of collat eral security is
effectual as against the bank asserting
a lien for a debt of the stockholders
contrary TO the statute of lSSll and Its
refusal. because of such asserted lien,
TO make the proper transfer on its books,
enders it liable TO the assignee in ac-
ton for damages, as for the conversion
of ifS a.h nj he
shares by the bank, after notice of the
assignment. is Intellectual to defeat the
prior right of the assignment. Judg-
ment affirmed. DICKINSON. j.
Ralph w. Cavanaugh, appellant, VS..
W. J. Mclaughlin, respondent.
Syllabus-The tendency of proceed
ings mot completed to condemn real
property for public use, is as between
vendor and purchaser. such defect in
the title that the latter under a contract
to convey TO him good title is not obliged
to take the title so affected. Judgment
reversed. GILFILLAN, {. j.
Peter GanSer. respondent, VS.. The Fire
mans Fund Insurance Company, ap-
pellant.
Svllabus-M., the agent of the insur-
ance company, resigned his agency, and,
seeking the appointment of his son in
his place, wrote as an inducement that
the work of the latter would be under
his immediate supervision. Another
agent, through whom this was COM
municated to the company, added that
the businets would run the same as be-
fore, but that he. NJ, desires his son to
learn the business and have some re-
spOnsibiIity. and takes this method.
The son having been thereup0n APP
pointed. Held. that the evidence justi-
fed the finding, and that it had still
authority TO act for the company. Evil
dence in the case considered as justify